PETA puts to sleep 97% of adopted pets

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sleep
AI Thread Summary
PETA's report reveals that in 2006, the organization euthanized over 97% of the animals it took in, finding homes for only 12 pets. Critics highlight the hypocrisy of PETA's stance against euthanasia in shelters while they themselves engage in similar practices. Some argue that many of the animals were not adoptable or were taken from shelters where they would have been euthanized anyway, but PETA's methods are still seen as contradictory to their mission. The discussion also touches on the credibility of the Center for Consumer Freedom, which reported on PETA's actions, suggesting that their motives may be influenced by funding from industries opposed to animal rights. Overall, the thread underscores the contentious debate surrounding PETA's practices and the ethics of animal euthanasia.
Mk
Messages
2,039
Reaction score
4
http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20080111/DC1129510012008-1.html
I know we all love PETA here.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), submitted nine months after a Virginia government agency's deadline, shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
So, they adpoted them to save the animals from being killed only to kill them themselves and they still talk down on animal shelters? Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.
 
Yeah... PETA is my third favourite thing--right after AIDS and Taxation Canada.
I've never been ashamed to admit that a celebrity was a Canuck until Pam Anderson got into that ****. :mad:
 
I have 0 respect for PETA, if I have the money for to donate to charity I would donate to the local humane society in a heartbeat ( they don't euthanize no matter how long the animal remains unadopted) but I would never give a penny to PETA.
 
"and that PETA contracts with a Virginia cremation service to dispose of the bodies."

What does this mean? It doesn't mean that they have been put the responsibility by the state to take their lives if they can't find a shelter for them? Or did 'noone' know they were 'disposing' of that many?
 
Last edited:
PETA=People for the Eating of Tasty Animals?
 
First, your headline is inaccurate. The animals that Peta euthanized were not "adopted pets."

Second, the CCF headline implies that 97% of pets in the United States (or in the world) were killed.

Also, in many cases these animals were not adoptable. In other cases, they came from shelters where they were going to be euthanized anyway, but with gas. Peta euthanized them with injections, which is quicker and more humane.

Finally, it's important for people to know what the Center for Consumer Freedom is. It's a deceptively named group that was founded with money from the tobacco industry. (For more information, visit SourceWatch or ConsumerDeception.org.) The CCF's goal was to put a positive spin on smoking. When that failed, they moved to other industries and are now funded by the restaurant, alcohol, meat and dairy industries.

The CCF opposes Mothers Against Drunk Driving. And their MO is to try to discredit those groups that oppose the CCF. Peta is one of those groups because it cares about animals and doesn't want people to murder them for food.

Even if you hate Peta, please look into the source of this press release -- the CCF. As people who care about science, it would seem that you'd go out of your way to look at unbiased sources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought this thread would last a little bit longer before heading for a crash course. I'd hardly call chooseveg.com an unbiased source as they too have an agenda to push.
 
  • #10
Those three things at the bottom are my taglines. They weren't meant to be offered as sources related to the CCF press release.
 
  • #11
Ahh well fair enough. My apologies.
 
  • #12
The Center for Consumer Freedom is basically a libertarian organization. I know that means to a lot of people that it means "they're a bunch of nutjobs."

I checked on that Mother's Against Drunk Driving (how can you be against that? you're pro-drunk driving?). It turns out they're against them because MADD isn't about keeping down drunk driving as much as it is against alcohol use period, they say.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2554
 
Last edited:
  • #13
From SoureWatch.org:

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists ...

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
AnimalLover said:
First, your headline is inaccurate. The animals that Peta euthanized were not "adopted pets."
They were animals to be saved and then put up for adoption. They were intended for adoption. Close enough.
 
  • #15
"Cuckoo" is spelled like this. And, Cyrus, you're clearly a very nice guy.
 
  • #16
AnimalLover said:
First, your headline is inaccurate. The animals that Peta euthanized were not "adopted pets."
Obviously they weren't adopted, because PETA killed them first. It's a headline. The rest of the story is available to read...headlines are never the full story.

Second, the CCF headline implies that 97% of pets in the United States (or in the world) were killed.
No, the story points out that 97% of the animals that PETA took in were killed (only about 40 some odd percent in other shelters in the state were killed as unadoptable).

Also, in many cases these animals were not adoptable. In other cases, they came from shelters where they were going to be euthanized anyway, but with gas. Peta euthanized them with injections, which is quicker and more humane.
Irrelevant. PETA is the psycho organization that tells people that all those other shelters are bad for euthanizing animals, ANY animals, even the ones that are so badly behaved as to be unadoptable, and then turns around and euthanizes almost all the animals they took in. Hence, the hypocrisy claims. Most everything PETA does harms animals they claim to be saving.

Finally, it's important for people to know what the Center for Consumer Freedom is. It's a deceptively named group that was founded with money from the tobacco industry. (For more information, visit SourceWatch or ConsumerDeception.org.) The CCF's goal was to put a positive spin on smoking. When that failed, they moved to other industries and are now funded by the restaurant, alcohol, meat and dairy industries.
I agree that organization is also highly suspect, but the PETA story has been reported previously by the mainstream media organizations. This is just a report that it has led to an official conviction, basically just reporting the outcome of the prior allegations against them.

Peta is one of those groups because it cares about animals and doesn't want people to murder them for food.
:smile: PETA cares about lining their pockets. But, yeah, that's the whole point of the story, isn't it. PETA tries to tell people that animals have equal rights to people, so euthanizing an animal is tantamount to murder, yet they've euthanized the vast majority of animals in their care. That would be the definition of hypocrisy.

Even if you hate Peta, please look into the source of this press release -- the CCF. As people who care about science, it would seem that you'd go out of your way to look at unbiased sources.
The source isn't really important if they are reporting only factual claims. They are reporting information that would be available in the public record, and doesn't diminish at all what PETA has done.
 
  • #17
PETA:

raised: 2 million,

cost of parties, administration and advertizing: 1.9 million
 
  • #18
rewebster said:
PETA:

raised: 2 million,

cost of parties, administration and advertizing: 1.9 million

Yep. If you really care about animals and want to help them, DON'T donate to PETA, you're just throwing your money away and no animal will ever be helped by it, but I'm sure you'll get a nice, shiny calendar or pamphlets from them, the production of which undoubtedly polluted a stream poisoning some aquatic animals that they don't talk about because they aren't cute and furry. Donate to your local humane society or other shelter, volunteer time at one, or spring an animal from the pound yourself and give it a loving home.
 
  • #19
Moonbear said:
spring an animal from the pound yourself and give it a loving home.

This really the best way to help. I know that not everyone can do this, but whenever I have decided that the house needs a pet, I NEVER EVER go to the 'pet store' (it's almost as sickening as PETA).

There are millions of wonderful pets waiting in shelters for a home. That's where I found my cats Legolas and Aragorn.
 
  • #20
jimmysnyder said:
Meat is murder
Oh, man... that's hilarious! :smile:

Where can I get one of those to stick on my barbecue?
 
  • #21
Danger said:
Oh, man... that's hilarious! :smile:

Where can I get one of those to stick on my barbecue?

Yeah...murder tastes good. I think I'll go downstairs and have some right now!
 
  • #22
Proof that Peta is corrupt

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

Peta also killed 90% of it's animals in 2007 that it took in, oh and they also don't like people to have any pets at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Substitute the word "claim" for your word "proof".
 
  • #24
Some animals are too sick to be taken care of and need to be put down. They state themselves that they take animals that would otherwise be killed and often because they would have been shot or gassed by the shelters instead of lethally injected (the manner in which PETA killed them).
Do we know that these animals were healthy or could be healed?

I don't agree with all fo PETAs practices but they should be treated as fairly as anyone else.
 
  • #25
I was figuring that directly counter-arguing the OP would be futile, as this subject, like religion, is usually personal opinion and values (and thus inarguable). I figured it would be more effective simply knock the pins out from under an argument that claimed to be way stronger than it is.
 
  • #27
Correct, I have merged them.
 
  • #30
Them being healthy or not makes no difference.
 
  • #31
Cyrus said:
Them being healthy or not makes no difference.

What? Some animals need to be put down because of how sick they are. They can go on and on dying slowly so long as they are being taken care of, and that is not at all humane. Even PETA can see the sense in euthanizing them. The animals being taken, from what I have read, were in shelters where they would have been euthanized in what PETA considers an inhumane fashion (gas and shooting) and the PETA people taking the animals were euthanizing them in what PETA advocates as the humane way to do so (injection).
 
  • #32
TheStatutoryApe said:
Even PETA can see the sense in euthanizing them.
That's also a pretty bold claim. I rather suspect (I don't know for sure, so I won't claim) that the organization doesn't feel good about this policy - and I can assure you (that I do know for sure, knowing a few PETA members) that many members do not.
Some animals need to be put down because of how sick they are.
Certainly. But is "some" 90%?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
russ_watters said:
That's also a pretty bold claim. I rather suspect (I don't know for sure, so I won't claim) that the organization doesn't feel good about this policy - and I can assure you (that I do know for sure, knowing a few PETA members) that many members do not.
So you think they would rather see an animal suffer?
Certainly. But is "some" 90%?
They were specifically taking animals from shelters that would have been euthanized anyway so that's that question... Were all of these animals they killed in a condition that required euthanization or not? I haven't seen an article that mentions it.
 
  • #34
TheStatutoryApe said:
They were specifically taking animals from shelters that would have been euthanized anyway so that's that question... Were all of these animals they killed in a condition that required euthanization or not? I haven't seen an article that mentions it.

Well below there is a a site that actually followed the court case where 2 PETA workers were euthanizing animals in their van and then proceded to dump the bodies in a dumpster. They did pick up animals that MAY have been euthanized in the future, however the pair of kittens that they killed may have been adopted . A dog that they picked up in their van did not need to be euthanized and was healthy. They assured the shelter people that they would "find it a good home" and they even did this in front of the people that they took those animals from. They explained that the injections were to "sedate" the animals and make them calmer for transportation, but in reality they were injecting them with sodium pentobarbital.

I don't doubt that PETA gave them the bottles of solution and ordered them to go out in their van and do this.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day1.cfm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
~christina~ said:
I don't doubt that PETA gave them the bottles of solution and ordered them to go out in their van and do this.

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
 
  • #36
NeoDevin said:
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?


They have good lawyers.:wink:
 
  • #37
NeoDevin said:
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
There is no such "innocent" requirement on personal opinions.
 
  • #38
~christina~ said:
Well below there is a a site that actually followed the court case where 2 PETA workers were euthanizing animals in their van and then proceded to dump the bodies in a dumpster. They did pick up animals that MAY have been euthanized in the future, however the pair of kittens that they killed may have been adopted . A dog that they picked up in their van did not need to be euthanized and was healthy. They assured the shelter people that they would "find it a good home" and they even did this in front of the people that they took those animals from. They explained that the injections were to "sedate" the animals and make them calmer for transportation, but in reality they were injecting them with sodium pentobarbital.

I don't doubt that PETA gave them the bottles of solution and ordered them to go out in their van and do this.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day1.cfm
I read a bit about those two and they were certainly rather crazy. I'm not so sure that PETA was supporting this especially when they apparently have a freezer somewhere for storing the bodies. Though they may have started out "working" for PETA and received their materials from them PETA may not have realized what they were doing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
I can't see why anyone who wants to help domestic animals in terrible plights would ever donate there money to any organization and trust ANY organization to do it for them. Its naive and no different then those carbon credits. Just think if very single person who donated to PETA simply went out and did some local work equal to the money they spent... I wonder which situation would be better for the animals...

Saladsamurai said:
There are millions of wonderful pets waiting in shelters for a home. That's where I found my cats Legolas and Aragorn.

Those are the best cat names I've ever herd!
 
  • #40
robertm said:
Those are the best cat names I've ever herd!

They're good, but I think that I have a couple that beat them. My mother's friend, back in the early 60's, named her Siamese 'Mousey Tongue'. My mother herself named my last cat 'Dingbat MacBeth'. This was a 20 lb. tortoiseshell will a Siamese voice, who absolutely never shut up. He'd howl all day every day. She came up with the name based upon 'Dingbat the singing cat; he sang so loud that he sang flat' from Gilbert and Sullivan, combined with 'MacBeth murders sleep' from Shakespeare.
 
  • #41
Brilliant! Your mom has quite the talent!
 
  • #42
TheStatutoryApe said:
I read a bit about those two and they were certainly rather crazy. I'm not so sure that PETA was supporting this especially when they apparently have a freezer somewhere for storing the bodies. Though they may have started out "working" for PETA and received their materials from them PETA may not have realized what they were doing.

You're funny...you do know that PETA actually purchased a $9,370 walk in freezer themselves? It must be for food. :wink:
=> interesting video

apparently if you look at when they pan over the tax return you see this:
Freeda the Fish costume- $1,680.47
Lettuce Lady costumes- $825.00
Walk In Freezer- $9,370.00

I personally think this money should be wasted on costumes and not only that PETA is a nonprofit organization as well.
__________________________________________

I was just wondering where the 2 people could get the sodium pentobarbital. Could they have purchased it from a store? (is it legal)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
TheStatutoryApe said:
So you think they would rather see an animal suffer?
No, I'm objecting to your claim that the animals are suffering. I think you are wrong and I think they are putting perfectly healthy animals to sleep.
They were specifically taking animals from shelters that would have been euthanized anyway so that's that question... Were all of these animals they killed in a condition that required euthanization or not?
AFAIK, most animals that are euthanized at shelters are not euthenized because they are unhealthy, they are euthanized because they can't find adoptive homes. That's the point of this criticism of PETA: they are taking animals from shelters specifically for the purpose of saving them and they are not saving very many of them. They are failing in the stated goal of the program.

I'd go further to say that if PETA had a choice, they would/should only "rescue" animals that are wll enough for adoption. It would be pointless, even counterproductive, to rescue an animal that you already know you can't save.
I haven't seen an article that mentions it.
Exactly. That's why I said it's a bold claim - well, that and the lack of logic to the claim.
 
  • #44
robertm said:
I can't see why anyone who wants to help domestic animals in terrible plights would ever donate there money to any organization and trust ANY organization to do it for them.
There is a legitimate organization that peoplc can trust to donate their money to to save/adopt animals: the SPCA.
 
  • #45
robertm said:
I can't see why anyone who wants to help domestic animals in terrible plights would ever donate there money to any organization and trust ANY organization to do it for them. Its naive and no different then those carbon credits. Just think if very single person who donated to PETA simply went out and did some local work equal to the money they spent... I wonder which situation would be better for the animals...
I'll give you several reasons just off the top of my head:
1] people's time is at a premium, but one thing they have in spades is cash. Why not do the most good with what you have?
2] organisations can be more efficient in assigning resources - it works for food banks, disaster relief etc.
3] individuals cannot be monitored or controlled in how they act.
4] Well-meaning but unqualified citizens are a danger to both themselves and to the animals.

That last one deserves a subsection unto itself...


In short: care, rescue, medical attention and adoption are things that need qualified people to attend to. Holy Jeez - pleez - don't give people ideas that they can do this themselves!
 
  • #46
~christina~ said:
You're funny...you do know that PETA actually purchased a $9,370 walk in freezer themselves? It must be for food. :wink:
If you look at the part of my post you quoted you'll see that I specifically mentioned the freezer. So if they have a freezer, presumably for storage of bodies, and these two crazies were working for them then why were they illegally dumping bodies someplace?
I'm not saying that these two weren't working for them but again even PETA deserves to be treated fairly and given the benefit of the doubt.
christina said:
I was just wondering where the 2 people could get the sodium pentobarbital. Could they have purchased it from a store? (is it legal)
Legally you need to be a vet to obtain or possesses it. They may have procured it illegally on their own or through PETA who probably have enough vets and the like involved to have at least obtained it legally.

Russ said:
No, I'm objecting to your claim that the animals are suffering. I think you are wrong and I think they are putting perfectly healthy animals to sleep.
snip
Exactly. That's why I said it's a bold claim - well, that and the lack of logic to the claim.
My claim was that these animals may have been suffering and may have needed to be put down but no articles (accept about the two crazies that were arrested) state anything about the health of the animals and whether or not they ought to have been put down.
You said that my claim that PETA can see the sense in putting down animals that need to be put down was bold and I found that claim to be rather bold itself. Perhaps you misunderstood my post?
Either way they specifically state that the animals were "saved" from being killed by gas or shooting which they find inhumane, and killed by lethal injection instead which they advocate as the humane method.
Whether or not PETAs actions were ultimately ethical is debatable. Whether the animals were healthy (regardless of your belief on the matter) remains unknown. And aside from the two crazies that were arrested I see no evidence that their actions were hypocritical either which I base on their own advocacy as opposed to bias views of them being nothing but fringe lunatics.


Yet again, I don't agree with or support PETA. I just think they deserve the benefit of the doubt like anyone else. So show me evidence that they were killing perfectly healthy animals rather than expressing your belief that was the case. And show me evidence that PETA fully sanctioned the actions of the two crazies that were arrested.
 
  • #47
I think the biggest trouble here is that we don't have a lot of uncontestable facts. This is such a hot button issue that almost anyone who writes about it (and I include posts in this thread) is using second/third/nth-hand claims as source material and then further bending, folding, spindling and mutilating any shreds of truth in them until they're little more reliable than urban legends.

These "facts" are useless without context:

- Peta also killed 90% of it's animals in 2007 that it took in

- apparently if you look at when they pan over the tax return you see this: Freeda the Fish costume- $1,680.47, Lettuce Lady costumes- $825.00, Walk In Freezer- $9,370.00



Maybe we could all just take a pill.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Weird & Unusual Laws in the US & Around the World
Replies
49
Views
12K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top